Certainly it would be a lot cheaper and more effective for VW to replace ID.4 and Q4 with R2 based product. Especially if they are made in the US given the tariff on new cars will probably never go away even with a new administration. 

This is not surprising.   1. It is the cheapest Ford you can buy 2. It has no real competition 3. Ford doesn't have an alt-sedan to compete in-house for these same buyers 4. It is a very good idea and executed well... shocking competence from Ford all around

If enough people value personal mobility enough, they will force the auto industry to design and manufacture lower-cost vehicles.  What I don’t understand is why government officials keep repeating the industry’s claimed premise that electrification will preclude affordability, when the opposite should occur.  The industry obviously benefits from more expensive vehicles, which explains their position, but that won’t stop interest in cheaper vehicles and or transportation in general.  At far opposite extreme, electrification has allowed micro-mobility to become more practical than ever possible before when relying on tiny internal combustion engines.  The same technical arguments can be applied to very cheap EVs, particularly for city use.  Electrification makes downsizing easier, not harder.  IMO safety is major technical hurdle to overcome for those who want extreme affordability, but realistically safety is no worse than for the many riding E-bikes and E-scooters in traffic already.  Asian manufacturers have prototypes of mini electric vehicles already, so it comes down to demand given safety risks, not whether they can be built at lower costs.  Options should not be limited to micro cars because there is a middle ground.  Affordable cars like BYD Seagull may test just how small buyers are willing to accept if price is low enough.

I don't really see anything 60-ish about that image posted, but it does look more exotic.     It'll be interesting to see where they go with it - they'll have to get more modern without pissing off the traditionalists.     I'd imagine the 4-door will usher in a refresh for the 2-door, and that'll be the impetus for the refresh.     I think it's a few different factors:   price, practicality (lack thereof), styling   Price and practicality go hand in hand.....with everything becoming more expensive these days, buyers are looking more for jack of all trades vehicles, and 2-doors just aren't that.  Most can't afford a second "fun" car.  I also think the styling while not "bad" isn't as visually striking as the 2015 was, and there are certain angles that I think were a downgrade looks wise.   I think the 911s are an enigma styling wise, and have their own built-in market at this point, so they've come to expect small changes.  Mustang has to appeal to a broader audience, and especially one that increasingly leases and therefore wants changes more often, not less.....we see that issue too much across Ford's lineup - refreshes pushed past 3 years, so customers come back to the same model they're getting out of.  With the S550, they went new in 2015, refresh in 2018, and redesign for 2024, so 3 and 6 years!, 9 overall before a full redesign, only to go with a mild redesign, even reusing much of the interior.  If Ford stuck to that arrangement, we'd be due for a refresh for 2027MY, which would also align with a 4-door arrival.     Except, design generally works in "trends".  Things are in style for a while until they aren't, and something new (or old) comes along.  I guess the question is what trends you should follow.   If done right, any "trend" can theoretically be fine, it just has to be done in a well thought out, visually appealing way that speaks to buyers.

If enough people complain loud enough, they will bring those things back.  Case in point, the keyless entry keypad on the Super Duty trucks.  They made it a DIO on 2025.  It came back from the factory in 2026 because they saw it was very important to the customers.  They'll continue to get rid of "fluff" if it doesn't impact sales or doesn't get enough negative feedback from customers.

I only buy Ford trucks now but I still try hard to be a "Ford man."    If I were in the market for a well equipped SUV, the loss of the 3.0 in the Platinum trim would send me straight to a competitor.    It is not all about power.   It is more about refinement for me.   Based on rentals I have had and friends vehicles with the 2.3 in Explorers or Rangers,  I find it unacceptable for any model other than the base.  It still has the typical 4 cylinder nasty growl when accelerating and never feels totally smooth or refined.   For once, I mostly agree with Car & Driver when they wrote:   Despite its copious grunt, the powertrain fails to charm. Blame the engine's industrial drone, its relative lack of low-end torque (its maximum of 310 pound-feet peaks at 3500 rpm), and the automatic transmission's constant gear hunting and occasionally harsh shifts.    I didn't think the low end torque was too bad but the overall NVH is not to the same standard as Ford's excellent V6 Ecoboosts.    The 10 speed auto also operates better with the larger engines with fewer downshifts or gear hunting.

So 10% drop over 5 years means problem “resolved”?  What happens at 10 or 20 years, or longer?  The issue from my perspective is not only how useable the car remains, but how will driving range retention affect depreciation and hence total cost of ownership.  Battery replacement in older BEVs may be cost prohibitive, so does that mean these cars will be driven until scrapped when range is too low to drive normally?  I’d personally like to see battery replacements get much cheaper in addition to them lasting longer.

From what I can find, the skunkworks EV project started in 2022 sometime, was reported for the first time in 2024...so 5 years for a completely new platform and way of doing business designing it, isn't completely abnormal for the industry. 

I guess it all depends on the consumer reaction to it. Ford has been doing this stuff for years, but yet it doesn't seem to affect them?    In grand scheme of things, most of this stuff is complete fluff that has almost no impact on user experience and existed to drive profit up as an option. Pricing is going to go up anyways.    IMO I think we are hitting peak car options-extra cameras are nice, but at least in my view of things, its overkill-I felt like I was hitting information overload in a Santa Fe that shows the cameras on its screens when making turns etc. 

That's a crazy statistic, and good for the brand.  Hopefully they can retain those customers now.